Search

Aim: Temporary cement can be applied for both permanent and temporary cementation of implant-supported fixed restorations. These cements must have certain physical and mechanical properties. Specifically, the film thickness directly affects the cement's clinical success. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the film thicknesses of six temporary cements before and after thermal cycling., Materials and Methods: Eighty-four metal copings with uniform holding loops were fabricated and divided into 12 groups of seven samples each. Six of these groups were subjected to a thermal cycling process. The copings were cemented to solid implant abutments (Implance Solid Abutment, 3.5-mm cervical diameter, 2 mm high, 6° taper, Implance Dental Implant System; AGS Medical, Trabzon, Turkey), using six different types of cement. The fitting surfaces were coated with the luting cements. After steeping in artificial saliva for 24 hours, the specimens were subjected to pull-out testing using an Instron machine. Specimens in the thermal cycling groups were subjected to 700 thermal cycles (36-55°C) prior to pull-out testing., Results: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant differences between the retention values of the thermal cycling (+) and thermal cycling (-) groups (U = 153.0, P < 0.01). The retention values of the groups subjected to thermal cycling were significantly lower than those of the cements that were not subjected to thermal cycling. Thermal cycling also affected the film thickness significantly (Wilcoxon signed rank test, Z = -5.533, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Thermal cycling affects the film thickness and retention of temporary cements significantly. The retention value was significantly higher for glass ionomer cement than for the other cements tested, and this cement also exhibited greatest film thickness., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Objective: This study compared the esthetic outcomes of 1-year follow-up of immediate and late implant loading after implant restoration of a single tooth in the anterior maxilla., Materials and Methods: A total of 33 patients with missing teeth in the anterior maxilla (Central = 8/lateral = 22/canine = 3) were enrolled in this study (18 immediate loading and 15 late loading). At after cementation, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months photographs were taken of anterior maxilla. The photographs were assessed using pink esthetic score (PES) which consists of seven variables. All PES data were analyzed with independent sample t-tests and repeated measures ANOVAs., Results: PES values increased significantly in both groups at the 1-year follow-up (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the immediate and late loading groups at any time point (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, immediate loading did not have a negative effect on esthetics., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Aim: In this study, we investigated the retention of two attachment types, Straumann ball (SB) and Straumann Locator ® (SL) attachments, on different implant angulations and identified the most appropriate treatment type or attachment system for each angulation., Materials and Methods: The attachments placed on angulation of 0°-, 10°-, and 20° implants were subjected to 1440 vertical insertion-separation cycles. The retention values of the attachments after 0, 720, and 1440 cycles were measured using the Instron machine. In addition, scanning electron microscopy images of the attachments and abutments were obtained before and after the insertion-separation process., Results: There was a significant difference between the SB and SL attachments that were placed on 0° after 1440 cycles (P < 0.05) and between 20° SB and 20° SL attachments after 720 and 1440 cycles (P < 0.05) in terms of retention. No significant difference was observed between 20° SB and 20° SL attachments at 0 cycles (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: In implants with a 20° angle, retention of stud attachments decreased more than ball attachments after use. Thus, the total angle between the implants should not be <20° if long-term retention is desired when using stud attachments. For implants with angles >20°, 6-month patient controls are required to control retention of attachments by considering factors in the mouth with the two tested attachment systems., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest